Bitcoin mining is not efficient & other problems

[Lion87346]

 

[cr1776]

Everyone knows that there is a problem with Bitcoin that needs to be fixed before there's mass adoption. What's one of the main problems? Miners. If you don't pay a fee or if your fee is too low they make you wait, sometimes for hours. Another thing is the block size. I believe that replacing miners with another system will make it so Bitcoin can actually function as an efficient system, instead of miners ignoring your transaction, it will go through quickly and painlessly.

Another thing is the block size and fixing Bitcoin. The average person needs to understand what's going on behind the scenes, people who are involved in alt coins are voting against fixing Bitcoin. In other words: keeping Bitcoin broken and UNFIXABLE, due to corrupt voting practices is considered a viable business practice.

What's going on behind the scenes? Bribes. People are paying well known people within the Bitcoin community to keep Bitcoin broken, they bribe them to say "There's no problems with Bitcoin! No need for an upgrade! ". What I think should be done is the community should vote in people to work on Bitcoin software design to fix Bitcoin or it will remain broken for many years.

First, this is a technical discussion area and I see nothing technical.  It should be moved.  [It has been now]
Second, your claim that "everyone knows that there is a problem..." is false.
Third, if you wish it to be changed, go ahead or find someone and pay them to change it (along with anyone else who agrees).  This is open source software.
Fourth, miners aren't charities.  They have costs involved and they charge the people using bitcoin to cover their costs.  If one wishes to run a mining operation for free or at a lower cost, no one is stopping them and everyone would love it.  Yet I don't see many (any?) of the people who want "free" transactions buying mining equipment, networking equipment etc and mining for free (or only for the block reward).

[franky1]

an ASIC miner has NO hard drive.
an ASIC miner does NOT store the blockchain
an ASIC miner is NOT affected by the blocksize in any way.
an ASIC miner just receives a hash.. (small string of text) and it processes that string of text using a puzzle to create another string of text

it does not matter how much data a block has, the hash an ASIC miner receives stays the same length.

do not blame the block size on miners!!

blame it on PEOPLE thinking that USERS NODES cannot cope. when in reality USER NODES can cope
blame it on PEOPLE stupidly thinking the block bloat needs to be gigabytes a day and terrabytes a month.

blame it on PEOPLE who ignore the rational consensus since last year that is 2-4mb a block .. no 80mb-100gb(fake irrational doomsdays)
yes that is right for the last year the compromise has been 2-4mb.. so will people stop the irrational random numbers needed tomorrow..

[franky1]

an ASIC miner has NO hard drive.
an ASIC miner does NOT store the blockchain
an ASIC miner is NOT affected by the blocksize in any way.
an ASIC miner just receives a hash.. (small string of text) and it processes that string of text using a puzzle to create another string of text

it does not matter how much data a block has, the hash an ASIC miner receives stays the same length.

do not blame the block size on miners!!

blame it on PEOPLE thinking that USERS NODES cannot cope. when in reality USER NODES can cope

Do you have any alternative ideas to replace miners? Or would this ruin your business?

mining is not the problem
the blocksize problem is due to developers refusing to even release code to allow the community to choose differing blocksize upgrade options, to get to a consensus for the network to upgrade naturally

p.s i got out of the mining game in 2013-2014

[franky1]

I don't think it will be fixed soon because people who benefit from and created alt coins will vote/influence to keep Bitcon as primitive as possible.

yep Gmaxell (team leader of bitcoin core devs) loves his monero and his blockstream elements and his hyperledger sidechains.. more than he loves bitcoin.
yep Luke_jr (third in command bitcoin dev) loves his merge mind coins and is looking forward to merge mining side chains
yep Rusty Russel(5th in command bitcoin dev) loves his LN network that will be the swap mechanism between altcoins and bitcoin

[Svelto]

Everyone knows that there is a problem with Bitcoin that needs to be fixed before there's mass adoption. What's one of the main problems? Miners. If you don't pay a fee or if your fee is too low they make you wait, sometimes for hours. Another thing is the block size. I believe that replacing miners with another system will make it so Bitcoin can actually function as an efficient system, instead of miners ignoring your transaction, it will go through quickly and painlessly.

Another thing is the block size and fixing Bitcoin. The average person needs to understand what's going on behind the scenes, people who are involved in alt coins are voting against fixing Bitcoin. In other words: keeping Bitcoin broken and UNFIXABLE, due to corrupt voting practices is considered a viable business practice.

What's going on behind the scenes? Bribes. People are paying well known people within the Bitcoin community to keep Bitcoin broken, they bribe them to say "There's no problems with Bitcoin! No need for an upgrade! ". What I think should be done is the community should vote in people to work on Bitcoin software design to fix Bitcoin or it will remain broken for many years.

Why you want use for free? Or why miners need to work for free? It's pretty quite obviously you pay a fees for a "plus" getting fast transaction!

For the rest, I folllow btc from a year and I don't know what is better about blocksize. But behind there are good players and I think a "solution" about blocksize are around the corner.

[AgentofCoin]

Everyone knows that there is a problem with Bitcoin that needs to be fixed before there's mass adoption. What's one of the main problems? Miners. If you don't pay a fee or if your fee is too low they make you wait, sometimes for hours.

You are paying a miner's fee for priority for a FINAL SETTLEMENT.
When you pay with a credit card or debt, your tx is REVERSABLE up to 6 to 9 months.
Bitcoin allows for a near immediate SETTLEMENT in a P2P way.

Whether the future use is as a CURRENCY or ASSET, is currently debatable.

Another thing is the block size. I believe that replacing miners with another system will make it so Bitcoin can actually function as an efficient system, instead of miners ignoring your transaction, it will go through quickly and painlessly.

This statement doesn't really mean anything.

Another thing is the block size and fixing Bitcoin. The average person needs to understand what's going on behind the scenes, people who are involved in alt coins are voting against fixing Bitcoin. In other words: keeping Bitcoin broken and UNFIXABLE, due to corrupt voting practices is considered a viable business practice.

This statement doesn't really mean anything.
The average person doesn't care nor will ever understand what is going on behind the "scenes".
Do the average people know what is occurring behind the scenes in world financial exchanges?

Do you have any evidence or source material for altcoin people preventing Bitcoin from being "fixed"?

What's going on behind the scenes? Bribes. People are paying well known people within the Bitcoin community to keep Bitcoin broken, they bribe them to say "There's no problems with Bitcoin! No need for an upgrade! ". What I think should be done is the community should vote in people to work on Bitcoin software design to fix Bitcoin or it will remain broken for many years.

Do you have any evidence or source material for people bribing others to argue not to "upgrade"?

The community can not vote for people to work on Bitcoin because most work is purely voluntary.
Most of your understanding as to Bitcoin and how it works, or why it works, is incorrect.

[franky1]

My beef with miners is efficiency, my wallet has a set fee, I paid it and it's been 4 hours now. If it were an efficient system a transaction would be done instantly. Could this work in the real world? No. Who would wait 4 hours if they bought a coffee with Bitcoin? There are serious problems that need to be fixed.

from the miners point of view the transaction fee is not a main income for them. its just a bonus. the blockreward itself is their main income
we should not be entering a fee war right now. we should be expanding the block size to allow more transactions in.. fee's should be a gradual thing over DECADES not weeks/months

there are other ways to prioritise transactions based on code, without having to use fee's as the main decider.

holding the blocksize down while pushing the fee's up is not the fault of miners. its the dev's they want to make bitcoin useless to push people over to commercial services (LN) or commercial sidechains.

for instance we could put in a priority algo into the transaction (like the olden days had) but with a few more variables. such as stretching out the importance of the age of the coin. so that people cant spend it the moment its received (to avoid people respending to spam the network)
we can push the effect of how bloated a tx is, so that leaner transactions(less bytes) get more priority

[rajasumi3]

Actually the most problem is coming from the difficulty level, which is increasing a lot .and the cost of electricity is also very high and solar mining is also very helpful to some extend.

[AgentofCoin]

Everyone knows that there is a problem with Bitcoin that needs to be fixed before there's mass adoption. What's one of the main problems? Miners. If you don't pay a fee or if your fee is too low they make you wait, sometimes for hours.

You are paying a miner's fee for priority for a FINAL SETTLEMENT.
When you pay with a credit card or debt, your tx is REVERSABLE up to 6 to 9 months.
Bitcoin allows for a near immediate SETTLEMENT in a P2P way.

Whether the future use is as a CURRENCY or ASSET, is currently debatable.

Another thing is the block size. I believe that replacing miners with another system will make it so Bitcoin can actually function as an efficient system, instead of miners ignoring your transaction, it will go through quickly and painlessly.

This statement doesn't really mean anything.

Another thing is the block size and fixing Bitcoin. The average person needs to understand what's going on behind the scenes, people who are involved in alt coins are voting against fixing Bitcoin. In other words: keeping Bitcoin broken and UNFIXABLE, due to corrupt voting practices is considered a viable business practice.

This statement doesn't really mean anything.
The average person doesn't care nor will ever understand what is going on behind the "scenes".
Do the average people know what is occurring behind the scenes in world financial exchanges?

Do you have any evidence or source material for altcoin people preventing Bitcoin from being "fixed"?

What's going on behind the scenes? Bribes. People are paying well known people within the Bitcoin community to keep Bitcoin broken, they bribe them to say "There's no problems with Bitcoin! No need for an upgrade! ". What I think should be done is the community should vote in people to work on Bitcoin software design to fix Bitcoin or it will remain broken for many years.

Do you have any evidence or source material for people bribing others to argue not to "upgrade"?

The community can not vote for people to work on Bitcoin because most work is purely voluntary.
Most of your understanding as to Bitcoin and how it work or why it works, is incorrect.

"You are paying a miner's fee for priority for a FINAL SETTLEMENT.
When you pay with a credit card or debt, your tx is REVERSABLE up to 6 to 9 months.
Bitcoin allows for a near immediate SETTLEMENT in a P2P way."

My problem is obviously not about the fee, it's the efficiency, they may take hours if you don't pay them enough. There is no set price. Meaning, if you went out to buy something with Bitcoin is waiting hours reasonable?

"The community can not vote for people to work on Bitcoin because most work is purely voluntary.
Most of your understanding as to Bitcoin and how it work or why it works, is incorrect."

You are obviously incorrect, much of what happens to change Bitcoin happens through the community voting to change something, there is a consensus. Not anyone can go change the code of Bitcoin, for example, if you have any coding experience go try to make your own changes and see what happens.

1. What you don't understand is that bitcoins are technically an electronic cash or some say electronic gold.
In order for these electronic payment types to work, there needs to be a verification to prevent doublespends.
To solve this, Satoshi "created" the blockchain system, so there can never be true instantaneous settlement.
Instantaneous settlement is an illusion for laypeople in electronic forms of payment.
The truth is that the more confirmations your tx has, the more non-reversable it becomes.
That is how the blockchain system works.

Your concern is buying something in a store in real time.
You are requesting an illusionary aspect, so that the buyer and seller "feels" better about
releasing the product in real time.


2. The community does not vote for changes in the Bitcoin protocol.
Only the node and mining community has any voting/signaling ability.

Average Bitcoin users have no means to vote for who they want to code for Bitcoin.
You have no voting ability to decide what you yourself are suggesting, unless you run a node.

[AgentofCoin]

Everyone knows that there is a problem with Bitcoin that needs to be fixed before there's mass adoption. What's one of the main problems? Miners. If you don't pay a fee or if your fee is too low they make you wait, sometimes for hours.

You are paying a miner's fee for priority for a FINAL SETTLEMENT.
When you pay with a credit card or debt, your tx is REVERSABLE up to 6 to 9 months.
Bitcoin allows for a near immediate SETTLEMENT in a P2P way.

Whether the future use is as a CURRENCY or ASSET, is currently debatable.

Another thing is the block size. I believe that replacing miners with another system will make it so Bitcoin can actually function as an efficient system, instead of miners ignoring your transaction, it will go through quickly and painlessly.

This statement doesn't really mean anything.

Another thing is the block size and fixing Bitcoin. The average person needs to understand what's going on behind the scenes, people who are involved in alt coins are voting against fixing Bitcoin. In other words: keeping Bitcoin broken and UNFIXABLE, due to corrupt voting practices is considered a viable business practice.

This statement doesn't really mean anything.
The average person doesn't care nor will ever understand what is going on behind the "scenes".
Do the average people know what is occurring behind the scenes in world financial exchanges?

Do you have any evidence or source material for altcoin people preventing Bitcoin from being "fixed"?

What's going on behind the scenes? Bribes. People are paying well known people within the Bitcoin community to keep Bitcoin broken, they bribe them to say "There's no problems with Bitcoin! No need for an upgrade! ". What I think should be done is the community should vote in people to work on Bitcoin software design to fix Bitcoin or it will remain broken for many years.

Do you have any evidence or source material for people bribing others to argue not to "upgrade"?

The community can not vote for people to work on Bitcoin because most work is purely voluntary.
Most of your understanding as to Bitcoin and how it work or why it works, is incorrect.

"You are paying a miner's fee for priority for a FINAL SETTLEMENT.
When you pay with a credit card or debt, your tx is REVERSABLE up to 6 to 9 months.
Bitcoin allows for a near immediate SETTLEMENT in a P2P way."

My problem is obviously not about the fee, it's the efficiency, they may take hours if you don't pay them enough. There is no set price. Meaning, if you went out to buy something with Bitcoin is waiting hours reasonable?

"The community can not vote for people to work on Bitcoin because most work is purely voluntary.
Most of your understanding as to Bitcoin and how it work or why it works, is incorrect."

You are obviously incorrect, much of what happens to change Bitcoin happens through the community voting to change something, there is a consensus. Not anyone can go change the code of Bitcoin, for example, if you have any coding experience go try to make your own changes and see what happens.

1. What you don't understand is that bitcoins are technically an electronic cash or some say electronic gold.
In order for these electronic payment types to work, there needs to be a verification to prevent doublespends.
To solve this, Satoshi "created" the blockchain system, so there can never be true instantaneous settlement.
Instantaneous settlement is an illusion for laypeople in electronic forms of payment.
The truth is that the more confirmations your tx has, the more non-reversable it becomes.
That is how the blockchain system works.

Your concern is buying something in a store in real time.
You are requesting an illusion so that the buyer and seller "feel" better about releasing the product.


2. The community does not vote for changes in the Bitcoin protocol.
Only the node and mining community has any voting/signaling ability.

Average Bitcoin users have no means to vote for who they want to code for Bitcoin.
You have no voting ability to decide what you yourself is suggesting, unless you run a node.

Correct. But you still haven't discussed any of the issues. Do you have any? How would you like Bitcoin to be improved? Is it perfect in your opinion?

I haven't discussed them, because I don't fully agree with your assumptions and opinion as to certain issues.
I do have issues, but in my view, some issues deserve priority over other issues.

There are many things that need to be defined in order to determine what is what.
For example, what is your definition of "perfect" in this case? Because in my view no system can be perfect.

Would you say that the VISA Payment system is perfect, in your view?

[AgentofCoin]

Everyone knows that there is a problem with Bitcoin that needs to be fixed before there's mass adoption. What's one of the main problems? Miners. If you don't pay a fee or if your fee is too low they make you wait, sometimes for hours.

You are paying a miner's fee for priority for a FINAL SETTLEMENT.
When you pay with a credit card or debt, your tx is REVERSABLE up to 6 to 9 months.
Bitcoin allows for a near immediate SETTLEMENT in a P2P way.

Whether the future use is as a CURRENCY or ASSET, is currently debatable.

Another thing is the block size. I believe that replacing miners with another system will make it so Bitcoin can actually function as an efficient system, instead of miners ignoring your transaction, it will go through quickly and painlessly.

This statement doesn't really mean anything.

Another thing is the block size and fixing Bitcoin. The average person needs to understand what's going on behind the scenes, people who are involved in alt coins are voting against fixing Bitcoin. In other words: keeping Bitcoin broken and UNFIXABLE, due to corrupt voting practices is considered a viable business practice.

This statement doesn't really mean anything.
The average person doesn't care nor will ever understand what is going on behind the "scenes".
Do the average people know what is occurring behind the scenes in world financial exchanges?

Do you have any evidence or source material for altcoin people preventing Bitcoin from being "fixed"?

What's going on behind the scenes? Bribes. People are paying well known people within the Bitcoin community to keep Bitcoin broken, they bribe them to say "There's no problems with Bitcoin! No need for an upgrade! ". What I think should be done is the community should vote in people to work on Bitcoin software design to fix Bitcoin or it will remain broken for many years.

Do you have any evidence or source material for people bribing others to argue not to "upgrade"?

The community can not vote for people to work on Bitcoin because most work is purely voluntary.
Most of your understanding as to Bitcoin and how it work or why it works, is incorrect.

"You are paying a miner's fee for priority for a FINAL SETTLEMENT.
When you pay with a credit card or debt, your tx is REVERSABLE up to 6 to 9 months.
Bitcoin allows for a near immediate SETTLEMENT in a P2P way."

My problem is obviously not about the fee, it's the efficiency, they may take hours if you don't pay them enough. There is no set price. Meaning, if you went out to buy something with Bitcoin is waiting hours reasonable?

"The community can not vote for people to work on Bitcoin because most work is purely voluntary.
Most of your understanding as to Bitcoin and how it work or why it works, is incorrect."

You are obviously incorrect, much of what happens to change Bitcoin happens through the community voting to change something, there is a consensus. Not anyone can go change the code of Bitcoin, for example, if you have any coding experience go try to make your own changes and see what happens.

1. What you don't understand is that bitcoins are technically an electronic cash or some say electronic gold.
In order for these electronic payment types to work, there needs to be a verification to prevent doublespends.
To solve this, Satoshi "created" the blockchain system, so there can never be true instantaneous settlement.
Instantaneous settlement is an illusion for laypeople in electronic forms of payment.
The truth is that the more confirmations your tx has, the more non-reversable it becomes.
That is how the blockchain system works.

Your concern is buying something in a store in real time.
You are requesting an illusionary aspect, so that the buyer and seller "feels" better about
releasing the product in real time.


2. The community does not vote for changes in the Bitcoin protocol.
Only the node and mining community has any voting/signaling ability.

Average Bitcoin users have no means to vote for who they want to code for Bitcoin.
You have no voting ability to decide what you yourself are suggesting, unless you run a node.

I think this thread proves my original point. I don't think much will get done because there's more money in creating alt coins, saying bad things about Bitcoin and keeping Bitcoin software primitive and less attractive than alt coins. Also, DASH has instant send and doesn't have any issues with double spending, Bitcoin does, seen here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtGzV_-agcI&feature=youtu.be

https://www.glasshunt.co/

You are coming at this the wrong way.
If you feel that an altcoin will overtake Bitcoin as the leader, you can invest in another coin.
DASH is known for having problems that Bitcoin does not. DASH's instant send is an illusion.
As I have stated prior, there can not be "instantaneous settlement" in a blockchain.
If DASH claims to have it, it is likely a misunderstanding of how that coin functions.

In the meantime, Bitcoin is doing what it was designed to do and will continue to do.
When a change is needed and the community wants it, the change will come.
Because changes are not constant or revolutionary at each new version,
does not mean there is something wrong, that just means we have nothing to prove.

The video you have provided shows someone doublespending in an online casino.
That type of doublespending is not what the blockchain was designed to stop.
That only occurred because the casino did not wait for a single confirm, before crediting the account.

Your understanding of Bitcoin is not correct, but an opinion on what you think it should do.

[jackg]

Everyone knows that there is a problem with Bitcoin that needs to be fixed before there's mass adoption. What's one of the main problems? Miners. If you don't pay a fee or if your fee is too low they make you wait, sometimes for hours. Another thing is the block size. I believe that replacing miners with another system will make it so Bitcoin can actually function as an efficient system, instead of miners ignoring your transaction, it will go through quickly and painlessly.

A transaction in order to be accepted, the main problem is that it takes 3 blocks (~30 minutes) for a transaction to be accepted by an exchange.
If we replace the blockchain then it no longer becomes Bitcoin as mining is required in order to keep the currency as decentralised as possible.

Another thing is the block size and fixing Bitcoin. The average person needs to understand what's going on behind the scenes, people who are involved in alt coins are voting against fixing Bitcoin. In other words: keeping Bitcoin broken and UNFIXABLE, due to corrupt voting practices is considered a viable business practice.

I'm not sure bitcoin is broken? The bugs that are found are fixed quite well by the developers (so far).
It isn't unfixable (altcoins are more unfixable).

What's going on behind the scenes? Bribes. People are paying well known people within the Bitcoin community to keep Bitcoin broken, they bribe them to say "There's no problems with Bitcoin! No need for an upgrade! ". What I think should be done is the community should vote in people to work on Bitcoin software design to fix Bitcoin or it will remain broken for many years.

Is there evidence of them saying this? I'd be happy to consider it if there is, if not, Bitcoin has fewer problems that what you think it does.

[franky1]

imagine the old priority mechanism
(total tx value*confirmations)/tx bytesize

where the total has to reach 57,600,000 to be 'priority'
eg a tx value of 100000000sats (1btc) that has been hoarded for 144confirms(a day) and was 250bytes
(100000000*144)/250=57,600,000 qualify
vs
a tx same value same bytes but only 1 confirm old
((100000000*1)/250)=400000 not qualify

a richer spender can have priority easily (someone with 144btc can qualify fee free) and respend every 10 minutes
((14400000000*1)/250)=57600000 qualify
where as someone with less than 1btc (0.1btc)
((10000000*1)/250)=40000 not qualify
and wont qualify unless their funds are really old(10 days)
((10000000*1440)/250)=57,600,000 qualify

hense why the old priority mechanism really didnt work well...

BUT
imagine we re-invented a fairer 'priority' mechanism that wasint biased between the rich vs poor
eg
((age/txbytes)*(blocksize/txbytes))

or there was an urgency metric added to the user priority
EG 2 people with same tx size and age. but one person doesnt care where other one does ((age/txbytes)*(blocksize/txbytes))+urgency

urgent ((144/250)*(1000000/250))+1=2305
not urgent ((144/250)*(1000000/250))+0=2304

the urgent one gets a slight better chance

then imagine the qualifier was based on mempool byte volume (demand) or some other reactive measure/metric

so here is the challenge.. sorry no prize or bounty.
lets see who can come up with a new 'priority' calculation and qualifier number that would prioritise those that need priority
you can use any metric you can think of that is available
blocksize
mempoolsize
transaction size
value
fee
confirms
user defined priority (urgent/not urgent)
etc.. you think of others

be creative
add, subtract, divide, multiple. to get some form of calculation thats more fair

[AgentofCoin]

...

...

...

...

...

You are coming at this the wrong way.
If you feel that an altcoin will overtake Bitcoin as the leader, you can invest in another coin.
DASH is known for having problems that Bitcoin does not. DASH's instant send is an illusion.
As I have stated prior, there can not be "instantaneous settlement" in a blockchain.
If DASH claims to have it, it is likely a misunderstanding of how that coin functions.

In the meantime, Bitcoin is doing what it was designed to do and will continue to do.
When a change is needed and the community wants it, the change will come.
Because changes are not constant or revolutionary at each new version,
does not mean there is something wrong, that just means we have nothing to prove.

The video you have provided shows someone doublespending in an online casino.
That type of doublespending is not what the blockchain was designed to stop.
That only occurred because the casino did not wait for a single confirm, before crediting the account.

Your understanding of Bitcoin is not correct, but an opinion on what you think it should do.

"DASH is known for having problems that Bitcoin does not. DASH's instant send is an illusion.
As I have stated prior, there can not be "instantaneous settlement" in a blockchain.
If DASH claims to have it, it is likely a misunderstanding of how that coin functions."

Um.. Anal retentive much? I was talking about improving the time that BTC is sent, making it more efficient.

"In the meantime, Bitcoin is doing what it was designed to do and will continue to do.
When a change is needed and the community wants it, the change will come.
Because changes are not constant or revolutionary at each new version,
does not mean there is something wrong, that just means we have nothing to prove."

No. If there are problems people fix them and sometimes people have hurdles,  people who get in your way when you're trying to fix them. The only time when there isn't a problem and nothing to fix is when you're dead.


"The video you have provided shows someone doublespending in an online casino.
That type of doublespending is not what the blockchain was designed to stop.
That only occurred because the casino did not wait for a single confirm, before crediting the account.

Your understanding of Bitcoin is not correct, but an opinion on what you think it should do."

Irrelevant, my point was talking about ways to improve confirmation time, not a double spend debate.

Bitcoin is transacted immediately, like a creditcard or debt.
For bitcoins to receive a confirmation, thus creating a final settlement, it must be within a block.
For Bitcoin to have faster confirmation times, there are three possible choices:
1. Shorten the block interval
2. Raise the max blocksize
3. Create second layers designed for faster and more tps.
Those three choices is what the current "blocksize debate" is about.
Each choice creates other problems that can or can not be currently solved.
Some of the opinions about each one, are also in debate and are just opinions.

No one knows anything for sure and an incorrect choice could damage the system and its future.
Sometimes, things only get "fixed" when the people are forced to "fix" them.
Currently, there is no true need nor a forcing enough, to cause a consensus toward a change.

If you want to change confirmation times, which is a reasonable request on its face,
the question then becomes, what are you will to give up for it? If we want faster times,
we will need to lose security and/or it decentralized nature, IMO.

If we can wait and hold out for a few more years or more, we might be able to design a
solution in which we can have high tps and high decentralization with Bitcoin directly.
That is what I want. I do not think we can legitimately do both now, IMO.

[franky1]

Bitcoin is transacted immediately, like a creditcard or debt.
For bitcoins to receive a confirmation, thus creating a final settlement, it must be within a block.
For Bitcoin to have faster confirmation times, there are three possible choices:
1. Shorten the block interval
2. Raise the max blocksize
3. Create second layers designed for faster and more tps.
Those three choices is what the current "blocksize debate" is about.
Each choice creates other problems that can or can not be currently solved.
Some of the opinions about each one, are also in debate and are just opinions.

No one knows anything for sure and an incorrect choice could damage the system and its future.

number one of the list is not a viable option..
it has many repercussions and changes many dynamics of bitcoin. its not part of the main debate. just scenario opinions and personal chitchat

number 2 can work once to stick ductape on the doomsday guys that throw randomly large numbers into the air that have not realistic rational reason to be concerned with in the next few years.

number 3 can work but more for the niche of day traders, facuet raiders, gamblers. not so useful for people that only buy one item a day/week/month.
also number 3's 'settlement' time becomes longer than 10 minutes. but atleast the 'trust' of instant acceptance is higher

funny part is by adding more double spend risk features like RBF and CPFP it has made 2017 more risky to accept a zero confirm.. not less risky. thus all that promise of segwit solving double spend risk has fallen flat

[AgentofCoin]

Bitcoin is transacted immediately, like a creditcard or debt.
For bitcoins to receive a confirmation, thus creating a final settlement, it must be within a block.
For Bitcoin to have faster confirmation times, there are three possible choices:
1. Shorten the block interval
2. Raise the max blocksize
3. Create second layers designed for faster and more tps.
Those three choices is what the current "blocksize debate" is about.
Each choice creates other problems that can or can not be currently solved.
Some of the opinions about each one, are also in debate and are just opinions.

No one knows anything for sure and an incorrect choice could damage the system and its future.

number one of the list is not a viable option..
it has many repercussions and changes many dynamics of bitcoin. its not part of the main debate. just scenario opinions and personal chitchat

Well it is a choice that would allow more tps.
It is just a highly controversial one and we both know no one would ever agree to it.
I just listed it since it is an option.

But you are correct, that it is not directly part of the "blocksize debate".

[jackg]

Bitcoin is transacted immediately, like a creditcard or debt.
For bitcoins to receive a confirmation, thus creating a final settlement, it must be within a block.
For Bitcoin to have faster confirmation times, there are three possible choices:
1. Shorten the block interval
2. Raise the max blocksize
3. Create second layers designed for faster and more tps.
Those three choices is what the current "blocksize debate" is about.
Each choice creates other problems that can or can not be currently solved.
Some of the opinions about each one, are also in debate and are just opinions.

No one knows anything for sure and an incorrect choice could damage the system and its future.

number one of the list is not a viable option..
it has many repercussions and changes many dynamics of bitcoin. its not part of the main debate. just scenario opinions and personal chitchat

Well it is a choice that would allow more tps.
It is just a highly controversial one and we both know no one would ever agree to it.
I just listed it since it is an option.

But you are correct, that it is not directly part of the "blocksize debate".

All of these would probably take years to implement. They are all "hard forks" that need to be done and can only be done with the majority of nodes running the new system.
There would also be multiple security threats that may rise with these hard forks if they are rushed or not fully tested (due to the pressure of the community).
It would clear up a lot of issues if the block intervals were set to 1 minute/block (not really a good idea for obvious reasons - blocks could have just one transaction and block rewards would have to be changed which I'm not sure is possible).
If we had wallets on exchanges such as coinbase or blockchain.info then when sending "internally" the transaction could be instant and done in house (I think coinbase already do this to a certain degree - although I could be wrong). Then all you'd have to do is keep a small amount there to put the coins in daily for these transactions.

[franky1]

All of these would probably take years to implement. They are all "hard forks" that need to be done and can only be done with the majority of nodes running the new system.
There would also be multiple security threats that may rise with these hard forks if they are rushed or not fully tested (due to the pressure of the community).

nope.

the blocksize option is not that bad. right now my client has a 2mb rule and is working fine. there are several hundred nodes with blocksize rules of over 1mb actually running right now on the network..

in 2009-2014. there were thousands of nodes with 1mb rule even when the blocks were only 0.5mb.. i know shocking right.. mindblowing thought that users can actually have a higher buffer set than what pools are producing. and doing it years before pools think the network can cope with it..
yes, mega brain fart explosion moment that decimates most of all the doomsdays rhetorics.

the funny part is that the node count can have the rule inplace before mining pools even decide to vote. the code has been available for implementations that are not core since last year. and it would only take a couple days for core to tweak their code too.. but they refuse as they fear the community will adopt it.. so their mindset is if you dont give the community caviar they will never ask for it next time they are spoonfed.

ofcourse mining pools wont move to bigger blocksizes unless majority of nodes can cope with it. which is why core wont offer it.
as for cores segwit. this doesnt need node implementation meaning the code that has a functioning wallet (not released yet(yep even 0.13.2 doesnt allow segwit transaction creation on mainnet)) is not released and wont be released until after activation, which means after activation there will be mad panic to download and peer review the code independently.

kind of backwards.. but hey. thats core.

It would clear up a lot of issues if the block intervals were set to 1 minute/block (not really a good idea for obvious reasons - blocks could have just one transaction and block rewards would have to be changed which I'm not sure is possible).

1min?
those complaining about 10mins would complain about 1min

think about it, you are at a shop and someone swipes their touchless NFC debit card and is gone in 3 seconds. you are then there standing around. after 10 seconds you hear people tutting and whispering "why is he just standing there" by 30 seconds you see them looking at their watches and getting angry. by the 1minute mark your apologising for making them wait.

1minute and 10minutes wont help most situations people cry about..
onchain double spending needs to be fixed by not having invented things like the fee mechanism (causing possible reject by simply not paying adequate fee maliciously/intently) or making a second tx that diverts funds and then use RBF and CPFP to force your preferred tx through first. thus rejecting the other tx.

If we had wallets on exchanges such as coinbase or blockchain.info then when sending "internally" the transaction could be instant and done in house (I think coinbase already do this to a certain degree - although I could be wrong). Then all you'd have to do is keep a small amount there to put the coins in daily for these transactions.

but now you are talking about middlemen managed services.. this is what offchain LN is. imagine coinbase you you set up a multisig together where coinbase cant move the funds without your permission and you cant move funds between them. yep it allows for faster transactions than the ones requiring confirmations.. but now your no longer in a permissionless position but instead a banking position.
also although you can 'trust' the funds instantly.. the true settlement lock will be longer than the 10 minutes. but hey if settling is of no concern, then go for it.. but you might aswell be using fiat too..

[calkob]

Everyone knows that there is a problem with Bitcoin that needs to be fixed before there's mass adoption. What's one of the main problems? Miners. If you don't pay a fee or if your fee is too low they make you wait, sometimes for hours. Another thing is the block size. I believe that replacing miners with another system will make it so Bitcoin can actually function as an efficient system, instead of miners ignoring your transaction, it will go through quickly and painlessly.  With what? since you seem to know so much.

Another thing is the block size and fixing Bitcoin. The average person needs to understand what's going on behind the scenes, people who are involved in alt coins are voting against fixing Bitcoin. In other words: keeping Bitcoin broken and UNFIXABLE, due to corrupt voting practices is considered a viable business practice. what are you even talking about

What's going on behind the scenes? Bribes. People are paying well known people within the Bitcoin community to keep Bitcoin broken, they bribe them to say "There's no problems with Bitcoin! No need for an upgrade! ". What I think should be done is the community should vote in people to work on Bitcoin software design to fix Bitcoin or it will remain broken for many years.  Not even one link as proof of your idiotic claim.

What a load of shit post, away crawl back under the rock you slipped out from you troll